Chile: Presidential Inauguration

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any members of the Royal Family will be present at the inauguration of President Lagos of Chile next month.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No members of the Royal Family will be present at the inauguration. My honourable friend John Battle, Minister of State for Latin America, and Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Republic of Chile, Miss Glynne Evans, will attend.

Congo: EU Arms Embargo

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements are in place to ensure that there are no arms shipments from member states of the European Union to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The member states of the European Community agreed, in a European Declaration on 7 April 1993, to impose an embargo on the sale of arms to Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
	Implementation and enforcement of the EU arms embargo is a matter for individual member states.
	The EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports requires EU member states to circulate through diplomatic channels details of licences refused. This includes licences for exports which fall within the scope of the DRC arms embargo.
	The UK implements this embargo by prohibiting the export to the Democratic Republic of Congo of all goods and technology on the UK Military List which forms Part III of the Export of Goods (Control) Order. HM Customs and Excise is responsible for investigating all suspected breaches of the embargo.

Congo: EU Arms Embargo

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements are in place to ensure that there are no brokering activities in member states of the European Union concerned to win the supply of arms to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Controls on the trafficking and brokering of arms are a matter for individual member states, whose national practices in this area vary widely. The CFSP Working Group on Conventional Arms Exports (COARM) has discussed the possible harmonisation of controls but has not yet reached any conclusions. The UK has contributed actively to the discussions.
	The Government's White Paper on strategic export controls (Cm 3989) contains proposals to enable the Government to control the involvement of persons in the UK or UK persons abroad in trafficking and brokering in controlled goods to countries which are the subject of OSCE, EU or UK embargoes or non-binding UN embargoes. (Such controls are already in place in relation to binding UN embargoes). Brokering activities for the supply of arms to the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is subject to a full-scope EU arms embargo, would fall within this proposed control.
	All proposals contained in the White Paper are under review in light of responses received. Her Majesty's Government are committed to introducing new legislation as soon as time is available in the legislative programme.

Regional and Minority Languages Charters

Baroness Gale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have signed the Council of Europe Charter on Regional and Minority Languages.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am pleased to announce that today the UK Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe signed the charter on behalf of the United Kingdom. We hope to ratify later this year, subject to the completion of requisite parliamentary procedures.

Food Aid

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied with the use of project food aid as a means of poverty alleviation; and, if not, what is the status of this form of aid.

Baroness Amos: Our policy is that food aid in-kind can be an appropriate response to emergency situations but food aid can undermine agricultural production. However, I believe that well targeted development food aid activities can play a useful role in forming part of an effective social safety net for the poorest people in low income food deficit countries.

Ethiopia: Shortfall in Staple Foods

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What independent forecast they have made of the shortfall in staple foods in Ethiopia this year.

Baroness Amos: The Department for International Development relies on the assessments by UN bodies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation and United Nations Development Programme Emergency Unit for Ethiopia; the EC, to whom we second a food security specialist; reports from the International Red Cross and NGOs and our Food Security Field Manager in Addis Ababa.
	The UN estimates that Ethiopia faces a critical food gap between now and late April 2000 of about 250,000 MT of food. A European Union advance pledge of 50,000 MT is almost finalised and the Netherlands (5,000 MT) and the UK (9,000 MT) have also made pledges. A World Food Programme bridging appeal for approximately 32,000 MT is almost fully resourced.

General Pinochet

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether in the light of the legal proceedings for the extradition of General Pinochet the rights of people detained in European extradition cases should be re-examined in order to require evidence of their involvement in the alleged crime before they can be detained for long periods.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Senator Pinochet was arrested under a warrant issued pursuant to an extradition request from the Kingdom of Spain which, like the United Kingdom, is a signatory to the European Convention on Extradition. A key feature of the convention is the absence of a requirement to make a prima-facie case in order for the extradition to succeed; this is based on the premise that, among member states of the Council of Europe, the proper forum for the consideration of evidence is the court of trial. The United Kingdom's policy on judicial co-operation with its European Union partners is further to streamline extradition proceedings, a policy endorsed by the Tampere European Council in October 1999. The reinstatement of the requirement to make a prima-facie case would run counter to this objective and to the provisions of the convention.

General Pinochet

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the detention of General Pinochet has itself contributed to his health problems.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave him on 23 February (Offical Report, WA 31).

General Pinochet

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What to date they consider to be the total costs to public funds, excluding police protection costs, of the case against General Pinochet; and whether they will publish a detailed breakdown of costs of (a) counsel, (b) solicitors, including staff time, (c) all relevant court hearings, (d) the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service, (e) General Pinochet's costs awarded out of public funds, and (f) any other relevant costs that fall on public funds.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Total costs will be estimated once the case is completed. The costs, excluding police protection costs, we are able to calculate at this stage are £1,397,736.70. The breakdown of this is as follows: Costs incurred by the Home Office Counsel's fees: £262,870 of which £38,110.29 is, subject to agreement and assessment by the court, recoverable under costs orders made against Senator Pinochet by the Divisional Court. Treasury Solicitor's fees (including staff costs): £58,750 Costs incurred by the Lord Chancellor's Department First hearing at the House of Lords: £270,935.89 Application to vacate at the House of Lords: £31,328.39 These costs were paid out under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985. Crown Prosecution Service Counsel's fees: £346,876 Other costs (including staff costs, interpreters, travel and subsistence and photocopying): £251,614 Treasury Solicitor's fees Amicus curiae (approximate costs and disbursements including counsel's fees): £70,000 Other costs and disbursements: £18,000 Other Costs Cost of the medical examination of 5 January: £6,001.25 All these figures include VAT where applicable.

General Pinochet

Baroness Gale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make a further announcement on the case of Senator Pinochet.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has today decided that he will not order the extradition of Senator Pinochet to Spain. He made this decision under Section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989. He has referred the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of a domestic prosecution, in accordance with Article 7 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He has also decided not to issue authorities to proceed in respect of the extradition requests from Switzerland, Belgium and France. Full reasons for his decisions are contained in the letters to the parties concerned from one of his officials as set out: Letter to the Spanish Ambassador:
	My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is writing to inform you that the Secretary of State has this morning decided pursuant to Section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989 to make no order for the return of Senator Pinochet to Spain. This letter sets out the Secretary of State's reasons. He reserves the right to expand on them should it become necessary to do so. The Secretary of State's approach to his decision.
	On 14 April 1999, the Secretary of State issued an authority to proceed under Section 7 of the Act on certain of the charges made in Spain's extradition request. On 8 October 1999, Senator Pinochet was committed by the Bow Street Magistrate on all charges covered by the authority, to await the decision of the Secretary of State as to whether he should be extradited to Spain. A habeas corpus application was made on Senator Pinochet's behalf on 22 October 1999 which has not yet been heard.
	The Secretary of State is precluded by the Act from making an order for Senator Pinochet's extradition while his habeas corpus application is still pending. In the ordinary course the Secretary of State would not make a decision to refuse such an order until all proceedings arising out of the habeas corpus application had been completed. However, he has a discretion to do so in appropriate cases and a duty to consider whether this is such a case. In approaching that discretion, he has proceeded on the basis that he should not at this stage decide against making an extradition order unless it is already clear that there is some decisive factor which would lead him to refuse such an order at the end of the day. The only factor militating against the extradition of Senator Pinochet which is potentially decisive at this stage is the state of his health, and in particular his mental fitness, to stand trial. Representations
	On 11 January 2000, the Secretary of State informed those acting for Senator Pinochet and the Kingdom of Spain that he had commissioned a medical report on Senator Pinochet, which had been delivered to the Home Office on 6 February 2000. He informed them that the report indicated that Senator Pinochet was unfit to stand trial and that no significant improvement to that position could be expected. Subject to representations to be received at the Home Office by 5 p.m. on Tuesday 18 January 1999, he said that he was minded to conclude that no purpose would be served by continuing the current extradition proceeding arising from the Spanish request. Similar letters were sent to representatives of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations which invited them to make such representations if they wished. A statement to the same effect was made to the press on 11 January 2000 and in the House of Commons on the following day.
	The Secretary of State has received representations from most of those who were expressly invited to make them, as well as from a large number of other parties. He has taken careful account of them. He has also taken account of the points in recent judicial review proceedings in the High Court. In addition, he has reminded himself of the representations which were made to him on the two occasions, in December 1998 and April 1999, when he considered whether an authority to proceed should be issued under Section 7 of the Act in respect of Spain's extradition request.
	On 15 February 2000, the High Court decided that the Secretary of State was bound to disclose copies of the medical report in confidence to the authorities of Spain, Belgium, France and Switzerland, all of whom have made requests for the extradition of Senator Pinochet. Copies of the report, together with certain ancillary material, were supplied to the Crown Prosection Service on behalf of Spain and to the embassies of Belgium, France and Switzerland later on the same day. They were invited to make any representation on the report by 5 p.m. on Tuesday 22 February 2000. Representations were received in response to this invitation from all four requesting states. In the case of Spain, Belgium and France these included opinions from medical practitioners about the material sent to them on Tuesday 15 February 2000. In addition, some other representations on the medical report have been received. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these representations and the opinions annexed to them, with the benefit of expert advice. Senator Pinochet's health
	At the time when the Secretary of State was considering his first and second authorities to proceed, he received representations and a certain amount of information about Senator Pinochet's state of health from his solicitors. The tenor of this material was that Senator Pinochet was in some respects frail, as was to be expected in a man of his age. It did not, however, suggest that he was either physically or mentally unfit to stand trial. The Secretary of State did not regard this information as justifying the refusal of either of the authorities to proceed which he then issued.
	The first sign that a serious problem about Senator Pinochet's health might be developing came on 6 October 1999, when, two days before judgment was given in the committal proceedings, the Bow Street Magistrate excused him from attending the judgment in person. This decision was based on evidence given to the court by the general practitioner attending Senator Pinochet.
	On 14 October 1999, shortly after the decision of the magistrate to commit Senator Pinochet, the Secretary of State received through diplomatic channels representations from the Chilean Embassy, supported by medical reports, which suggested that there had been a recent and significant deterioration in Senator Pinochet's health. The Secretary of State did not regard this material as conclusive. It did, however, suggest the possibility that Senator Pinochet might be unfit to stand trial. He therefore decided to invite Senator Pinochet to submit to a medical examination by a team of clinicians appointed by him. The object was to obtain an independent, comprehensive and authoritative report on the relevant clinical facts. Senator Pinochet consented to undergo an examination, and the Secretary of State then selected, with the assistance of the Chief Medical Officer's advice, a team of clinicians to carry it out, having the required range of specialisations and no inappropriate personal interest in the case. They were:
	Sir John Grimley Evans FRCP, Professor of Clinical Geratology at the University of Oxford. He is a former Vice-President of the Royal College of Physicians and serves on the World Health Organisation expert panel on the care of the elderly. The Chief Medical Officer identified him as probably the most respected individual in British geriatric medicine.
	Dr. Michael Denham MD, FRCP (Lond., Edin.), FRSA, Consultant Physician in Geriatric Medicine at Northwick Park Hospital, London. He is a former President of the British Geriatrics Society and the author of numerous papers on the care of the elderly.
	Professor Andrew Lees MD, FRCP, Professor of Neurology at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London. Professor Lees is a specialist in movement disorders and dementia. He is medical adviser to, and co-director of, the Parkinson's Disease Society. All three are independent practitioners of outstanding national and international reputation in their fields. On their advice and with the agreement of the Chief Medical Officer, Maria Wyke MA, PhD, Consultant Neuropsychologist, was added to the team. Professor Lees and Dr Maria Wyke are fluent Spanish speakers.
	The clinicians were instructed to undertake the examinations and procedures which they judged desirable in order to provide my right honourable friend the Home Secretary with a fully comprehensive report on the state of Senator Pinochet's health. In particular, they were asked to advise the Secretary of State whether, in their view, there were any aspects of Senator Pinochet's state of health which, separately or together, suggested that he was not then fit, or was likely to become unfit, to stand trial in Spain. They were told that the Secretary of State was particularly interested in Senator Pinochet's ability to follow a line of questioning, to recall events, some of which took place as long ago as the 1970s, and to give coherent evidence. To the extent that any of the contents of their report were influenced by observation of Senator Pinochet's conduct and manner, they were asked to advise the Secretary of State on the extent to which that conduct and manner were capable of being consciously influenced by the Senator himself.
	It should be pointed out that the clinicians were not expected, in reaching their conclusions, to take responsibility for the legal test of fitness for trial, nor does the Secretary of State consider them to have done so. Their function was to ascertain the clinical facts. The test of fitness for trial which has been applied, both in framing their instructions and in assessing their report, is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who in turn has drawn extensively upon the opinions of his legal advisers.
	The medical examination was conducted in Spanish at the Northwick Park Hospital in London over a period of some six hours on 5 January 2000, and the report was delivered to the Home Office on the following day. Certain information supplementing the report was supplied afterwards. This comprised (i) a short account of the procedures followed at the examination, which was supplied by Professor Grimley Evans on 7 January 2000; (ii) a copy of the neuropsychological report of Dr. Wyke, which had been summarised in the principal report but not annexed to it; and (iii) an explanation of neuropsychological testing by way of introduction to Dr. Wyke's report. This material was supplied to the four requesting states with the principal report on 15 February 2000. In addition, the Secretary of State has referred to Professor Grimley Evans and his colleagues the representations received on their report and medical opinions annexed to those representations and he has received their comments.
	As the Secretary of State disclosed in his announcements on 11 and 12 January 2000, the conclusions of the medical report indicated that Senator Pinochet was unfit to stand trial and that no significant improvement to that position could be expected. The Secretary of State has considered the matter afresh in the light of all the material referred to in the preceding paragraph and in the light of representations which he has received on the subject. Having done so, he is satisfied that the conclusions of the original report were correct and that it is right to regard Senator Pinochet as unfit to stand trial.
	The critical facts are as follows:
	(1) Senator Pinochet was born on 25 November 1915. He is 84 years old. The Secretary of State does not regard Senator Pinochet's age as being in itself a sufficient basis for his present decision. But he has taken account of it in assessing the significance of other aspects of his state of health.
	(2) The clinicians instructed by the Secretary of State concluded that Senator Pinochet would not at present be mentally capable of meaningful participation in a trial. In reaching that conclusion, they were obliged to make assumptions about what kind of participation in a criminal trial would in law be regarded as "meaningful" in determining the fitness of an accused. Those assumptions are apparent from the conclusion of their reports and are considered in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) below. So far as the Secretary of State has attached weight to them, he is satisfied that they are appropriate.
	(3) The clinicians expressed their opinion about Senator Pinochet's capacity for meaningful participation in a trial on the basis of (i) Senator Pinochet's memory deficit for both recent and remote events; (ii) his limited ability to comprehend complex sentences and questions owing to memory impairment and a consequent inability to process verbal information appropriately; (iii) his impaired ability to express himself audibly, succinctly and relevantly; and (iv) easy fatiguability. The Secretary of State considers that all of these factors are potentially relevant to Senator Pinochet's mental capacity to participate in a trial. In this context, he attaches particular importance to Senator Pinochet's memory deficit for recent events, which would affect his ability to relate and understand items of information given to him at a trial and to his limited ability to comprehend complex sentences and questions and to process verbal information. The Secretary of State has not attached weight to the impairment of Senator Pinochet's capacity to remember remote events, save in so far as its recent deterioration is symptomatic of brain damage having a wider significance: see sub-paragraph (6) below.
	(4) With these impediments Senator Pinochet would be unable to follow the process of a trial sufficiently to instruct counsel. He would have difficulty in understanding the content and implications of questions put to him and would have inadequate insight into this difficulty. He would have difficulty in making himself understood in replying to questions.
	(5) In assessing the significance of the above matters, the Secretary of State has considered the nature of the issues which would be likely to arise in a criminal trial on the serious charges for which Senator Pinochet has been committed. He has also assumed that at any trial reasonable steps would be taken to mitigate Senator Pinochet's disabilities, for example, by attending to his physical comfort and medical needs, by adjusting the timetable of hearings and by endeavouring to simplify the proceedings so far as their nature permitted. He has reminded himself that the burden of proof at any trial would be on the prosecution. The Secretary of State does not consider that these matters are capable of mitigating to a significant degree the difficulties to which Senator Pinochet's disabilities would give rise.
	(6) The disabilities identified in the medical report are due to widespread brain damage, the major episodes of which seem to have occurred during September and October 1999 when Senator Pinochet suffered a number of strokes. They are not due to the ordinary processes of ageing.
	(7) The examination took place on a single day, but the clinicians had access to reports prepared by reputable British general practitioners and specialists attending Senator Pinochet who had examined him on a number of occasions in September and October 1999. These enabled them to cross-refer their observations on 5 January 2000 to earlier observations and to evaluate a characteristic pattern of illness as it had evolved over a period of several months.
	(8) The clinicians considered that further deterioration in both his physical and his mental condition was likely to occur but were unable to express an opinion on the effect (if any) which a trial would have on the rate of deterioration. Their view was that, although some day-to-day fluctuation in functional abilities was characteristic of brain damage due to cerebrovascular disease, further sustained functional improvement of a significant degree was unlikely.
	The Secretary of State has always attached great importance to being able to satisfy himself that the results of the medical examination was not influenced by feigning of any kind. His instructions to the clinicians drew attention to the point and he is satisfied that they have been conscious of it throughout. They have advised him that there was no evidence that Senator Pinochet was trying to fake disability. The impediments were coherent in nature and consistent in manifestation and the neuropsychological testing showed none of the features of deliberate exaggeration. In particular, those neuropsychological tests which were indicative of original intelligence and educational level showed superior performance. The Secretary of State is advised that there is no practical possibility that the results of the neuropsychological tests were influenced by coaching. He is also advised that while it is possible to simulate with drugs the symptoms of a global impairment of cognitive functions, (i) this is a problem with which geriatricians are particularly familiar, and (ii) Senator Pinochet's cognitive impairment was focal rather than global, a pattern not seen in drug-induced impairment. It is important to point out that the outward manner of Senator Pinochet is not necessarily a reliable guide to his mental condition. It is characteristic of persons with a high level of original intelligence that they are able to mask superficially a significant impairment of cognitive functions.
	The report of the clinicians who examined Senator Pinochet has been criticised by a number of medical practitioners whose opinions have been transmitted by the examining magistrates responsible for criminal investigations of Senator Pinochet in Spain, Belgium and France and by certain other parties. In considering these criticisms, the Secretary of State has borne in mind that those who made them have not examined Senator Pinochet, as the authors of the report of 6 January 2000 did, nor have they had the advantage which the clinicians enjoyed of studying records of Senator Pinochet's recent medical history. The Secretary of State is advised that most of the criticisms made of the report are irrelevant to its conclusions and certainly to the conclusions that are critical to Senator Pinochet's fitness for trial (see paragraph 15). He is advised that those criticisms which are relevant are medically unjustified. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the advice he has received on these points has been based on a careful and objective analysis of the criticisms. He accepts that advice.
	The medical report on Senator Pinochet of 6 January 2000 is an entirely independent report by highly qualified specialist practitioners on the relevant clinical facts. In commissioning it, the Secretary of State did not set out to prove any particular point and had no expectation of any particular outcome. He is satisfied that the clinicans who prepared it undertook their task in the same spirit.
	Letters of request from the examining magistrates in Belgium and France have been transmitted to the United Kingdom, each of which seeks a further medical examination. In addition, Judge Garzon, the examining magistrate in Spain, has called in his representations for a further examination of Senator Pinochet. Senator Pinochet has consistently declined to comply with the invitations addressed to him by requesting states for a further medical examination. The Secretary of State, having taken advice on the point, does not consider that a further examination would yield further material of significance. He does not therefore regard it as either necessary or appropriate to commission one in order to determine whether Senator Pinochet is fit to stand trial. Unfitness to stand trial
	The conclusions to which the Secretary of State has come mean that in a criminal trial in England, Senator Pinochet would be found unfit to stand trial, and there would not therefore be any trial of the charges against him on their merits. If this were a peculiarity of English criminal law, the Secretary of State would not attach as much weight to it as he does. However, in the view of the Secretary of State, the principle that an accused person should be mentally capable of following the proceedings, instructing his lawyers and giving coherent evidence is fundamental to the idea of a fair trial. He is advised that the attempted trial of an accused in the condition diagnosed in Senator Pinochet on the charges which have been made against him in this case could not be a fair trial in any country and would violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in those countries which are party to it.
	After receiving the initial representations of Spain, the Secretary of State asked for further information from those representing Spain about the principles governing these matters in the Spanish system of criminal justice. This information has satisfied him that while the procedure differs in significant respects from that which would be followed in England, the underlying principle is substantially the same. The test of fitness to stand trial in Spain depends mainly on whether the accused is capable of understanding and following the charges against him, answering questions put to him, understanding the oral and documentary evidence for the defence and the prosecution, defending himself and instructing his lawyers. This is consistent with the representations as to Spanish law made on behalf of Senator Pinochet and on behalf of human rights organisations represented by Bindman & Partners. If Senator Pinochet were to be extradited to Spain, his fitness for trial would be assessed there by an objective process of clinical examination and testing. There is no reason to believe that the process would lead to conclusions any different in substance from those of the medical report commissioned by the Secretary of State in England. The Secretary of State is conscious that in Spain as in England, a "trial" may include the process of assessing the defendant's fitness for trial. However, on the material before him, it is reasonable to assume that if Senator Pinochet were to be extradited to Spain, a trial there on the merits of the charges against him would be found impossible.
	In considering whether to decide against extradition on account of Senator Pinochet's unfitness to stand trial, the Secretary of State has given careful thought to the alternative possibility of leaving that question to be determined in accordance with Spanish judicial procedures in Spain, in the event that there was no other objection to extraditing him there. He has been advised and has concluded that on the basis of English law he is bound to form a view of his own on Senator Pinochet's fitness to stand trial and that he cannot refrain from reaching a concluded view on this point on the basis that the question can be determined in Spain. In the light of his conclusion that no improvement in Senator Pinochet's condition can be expected, he considers that no purpose would be served by the continuance of the current extradition proceedings in England. These would involve the continued detention of Senator Pinochet here for a period which, allowing for the habeas corpus proceedings and any appeal arising out of them, might be substantial. Any order for the extradition of Senator Pinochet which might then be made would involve the compulsory removal to another country of a man of 84 years of age who must at this stage be presumed innocent, for the purpose of a trial which could not result in any verdict on the charges against him for reasons that were already apparent to the Secretary of State as the extradition authority in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State considers that that course would serve no purpose of any substantial value to the interests of justice and that it would be oppressive to Senator Pinochet.
	The Secretary of State would not necessarily have taken the same view if there had been any realistic prospect that Senator Pinochet's condition would improve, either spontaneously or as a result of treatment. He is aware that in Spanish law the effect of a finding that an accused is unfit to stand trial is to suspend a prosecution for as long as that state of affairs subsists but it is not tantamount to an acquittal. Section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989
	Section 12(2)(a) of the Act provides that the Secretary of State may not order the extradition of the accused in relation to any alleged offence if it appears to him that:
	(i) by reason of its trivial nature; or
	(ii) by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed it . . . ; or
	(iii) because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice, it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him.
	The Secretary of State considers that this provision has no application to the present question. Although it would in his view be oppressive to order Senator Pinochet's extradition given his unfitness to stand trial, this state of affairs has not arisen by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed the offences. But for the lapse of time since the alleged offence, a decison under Section 12 might possibly have fallen to be made before Senator Pinochet became unfit, but the cause of his unfitness is the supervening brain damage which appears to have occurred in September and October 1999. That damage was not itself either caused or aggravated by the lapse of time since the alleged offences. Neither of the other two factors identified in the subsection is relevant.
	It follows that Senator Pinochet's unfitness for trial is not an absolute bar to his extradition. It is a matter to be addressed as part of the general discretion of the Secretary of State under Section 12(1). The European Convention on Extradition
	The United Kingdom and Spain are parties to the convention.
	The convention requires extradition in all cases to which it applies, subject only to specific and limited exceptions, and to any reservations made by particular contracting states on their accession. In cases falling outside these exceptions and reservations, there is no general discretion. There is no express exception applicable to this case, nor is there any relevant reservation of the United Kingdom or Spain. The Secretary of State is advised that it is open to argument whether the convention is subject to an implicit exception for cases where the primary purpose of any extradition, namely the trial of the charges alleged against the accused, could not be served. In the circumstances of this case, the Secretary of State considers it unnecessary to form a concluded view about that. He has assumed, in reaching his decision, that the convention does not allow for the refusal of extradition on the ground that the accused is and will remain unfit to stand trial in the requesting state.
	The convention is not incorporated into English domestic law save to the limited extent provided for by the European Convention on Extradition Order 1990, SI 1990/1507. This provides simply for the Extradition Act 1989 to apply as between the United Kingdom and other parties to the convention and for it to do so on the basis contemplated in Section 9(8)(a) of the Act that a prima facie case need not be shown on the committal hearing. Section 12 of the Act therefore applies as a matter of English law to extradition proceedings arising out of requests from states party to the convention. The discretion conferred by it on the Secretary of State must be exercised in such cases.
	Although the convention is not part of English domestic law, the Secretary of State attaches great importance to the international obligations of the United Kingdom, and in the exercise of his discretions under the Extradition Act he regards those obligations as both relevant and entitled to considerable weight. In most cases to which the convention applies they will be decisive. However, the Secretary of State recognises that given the breadth of his discretion under Section 12 of the Act, there may be some occasions on which the requirements of the convention are outweighed by other compelling considerations peculiar to particular cases. The Secretary of State considers that they are outweighed by such considerations in this case, having regard in particular to the nature of Senator Pinochet's condition in a man of his age, to its probable permanence and to its impact on the possibility of a trial of the charges against him.
	The experience of the Home Office has been that in practice parties to the convention operate its provisions in a more flexible fashion than its absolute language suggests and in accordance with basic principles of justice which are common to all of them. It is consistent with this approach that Belgium should have been recorded in the judgment of the High Court on its recent application for judicial review as having "clearly stated that they would support the Secretary of State's decision if only they could be satisfied that Senator Pinochet is indeed shown by the report to be permanently unfit to stand trial"; and that Spain should have informed the Secretary of State that it will respect any decision made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretionary powers. In making his decision, the Secretary of State has not attached weight to the matters summarised in this paragraph, but he considers it right that they should be recorded. Other countervailing considerations
	2 WLR 827, but the remaining charges are extremely serious. The Secretary of State attaches great importance to the principle that universal jurisdiction against persons charged with international crimes should be made effective, and he is aware that the practical consequence of refusing to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain on account of his unfitness to stand trial is that he will probably not be tried anywhere. The Secretary of State is also mindful of the sense of injury which will be felt by those who suffered from breaches of human rights in Chile in the past, as well as their relatives. All of these are matters of legitimate concern, and he has had them very much in mind when considering the evidence about Senator Pinochet's state of health. They are among the reasons why he has required the evidence of Senator Pinochet's condition to satisfy a high standard of expertise, thoroughness, objectivity and cogency before he was prepared to act on it. Ultimately, however, the reservation "so far as possible" cannot be brushed aside. A trial of the charges against Senator Pinochet, however desirable, is no longer possible.
	The Secretary of State has considered other factors, including a wide variety of matters raised in representations received at the Home Office. This letter has dealt in terms only with those matters which have had a significant bearing on the Secretary of State's decision. It is, however, right to mention the following further points:
	(1) The Secretary of State understands that if Senator Pinochet were convicted in Spain of the offences charged against him, victims of those offences might be entitled to recover civil damages in proceedings ancillary to the criminal trial. The Secretary of State doubts whether this point could be relevant to a decision whether to extradite a person on a criminal charge, but he has reached no concluded view on its legal relevance, because he does not in any event feel able to attach significant weight to it. It is right to add that the point assumes the possibility of a verdict on the charges.
	(2) The Secretary of State has not had regard to the possibility, if indeed it is a real one, that Senator Pinochet might be tried in Chile.
	(3) The Secretary of State considers that in some circumstances it may be appropriate for him to have regard to political, economic or diplomatic interests of the United Kingdom in exercising his discretions under the Extradition Act 1989. He has not had regard to such factors in making his present decision. Referring the decision to the Court
	The Secretary of State has been urged by a number of those who have made representations to him to leave to the courts the question whether Senator Pinochet should be discharged on account of unfitness to stand trial. He has considered this possibility but does not propose to adopt it.
	The High Court has power to discharge accused persons who are being unlawfully detained, and such further powers as are specifically conferred on it by the Extradition Act 1989. It has no inherent supervisory power over extradition. Under Section 11(3) of the Act, the High Court on the hearing of a habeas corpus application has a duty similar to that of the Secretary of State under Section 12(2)(a) to discharge an accused if by reason of the lapse of time since the offences are alleged to have been committed it would in all the circumstances be unjust or oppressive to order his extradition. If the Secretary of State had regarded these provisions as applicable he would have been bound to refuse to extradite Senator Pinochet. However, the facts making it oppressive to extradite Senator Pinochet do not arise from the lapse of time since the alleged offences. Therefore neither Section 11(3) nor Section 12(2)(a) applies. The Secretary of State is the only authority on whom a general discretion is conferred whether to order extradition. He has had regard in exercising it to the principal expressed by the courts on a number of occasions that the proper exercise of that discretion by the Secretary of State is the principal safeguard for the accused against oppression.
	The Secretary of State would not, even if the court had concurrent jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case, have thought it right to refrain from performing a duty or exercising a discretion conferred on him by statute which he was in a position to exercise on material which he had commissioned for that purpose simply because at some future stage another authority might take the decision instead. Domestic prosecution
	Article 7 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment requires the Secretary of State, if he does not order the extradition of a person accused of torture, to submit the case to the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities for the purposes of a domestic prosecution. The Secretary of State has supplied papers in advance to the Solicitor General and the Director of Public Prosecutions for that purpose and has this morning referred the case to them under Article 7. Their functions in the matter are entirely independent of his. Letters rogatory
	The only additional matter is the application of Judge Garzon by letters rogatory of 15 January 2000 for Senator Pinochet to be required to appear in court to respond to a request for a statement. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided not to give effect to this request on the grounds that Senator Pinochet is not a compellable witness as a matter of English law. Letter to the Belgian Ambassador:
	The Secretary of State has today made a final decision not to issue an authority to proceed under Section 7 of the Extradition Act 1989 in respect of the two requests of Belgium for Senator Pinochet's extradition, transmitted on 15 December 1998 and 11 November 1999. In making this decision, the Secretary of State has treated the "Elaborative Memorandum" transmitted on 3 February 2000 as supplementing those requests and has had regard to the full range of offences alleged against Senator Pinochet in all three documents.
	2 WLR 827. An offence committed outside the United Kingdom is not an extradition crime unless it was punishable in the United Kingdom at the date when it is alleged to have been committed. Torture outside the United Kingdom and conspiracy to torture outside the United Kingdom first became punishable in the United Kingdom on 29 September 1988 when Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force.
	None of the matters set out in the two extradition requests of Belgium and the Elaborative Memorandum discloses offences of torture or conspiracy to torture committed after 29 September 1988. In the Elaborative Memorandum, attention is drawn to three cases in which persons disappeared in circumstances which have never been disclosed to their families. It is alleged that their disappearance constituted torture of themselves and their families, which in the absence of news of them continued or must be treated as continuing to the present day. It is an essential requirement of the offence of torture in English law that the accused should by some act or omission have intentionally inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering on another person or been party to the infliction of such pain or suffering. The Secretary of State does not regard the two extradition requests or the Elaborative Memorandum as alleging (i) any act or omission inflicting severe pain or suffering and occurring on or after 29 September 1988, or (ii) that any intention to inflict pain or suffering was continuing until 29 September 1988 or any later date, or (iii) an intention existing at any time to inflict pain or suffering on any one other than those who disappeared. Furthermore, the Secretary of State does not regard any such allegations as being implicit in the facts alleged.
	There are no offences other than torture or conspiracy to torture disclosed in the two extradition requests or the Elaborative Memorandum which have at any time been punishable in the United Kingdom if committed outside the United Kingdom. The requirement that offences alleged in an extradition request should be punishable under the law of the requested state is of course reflected in the European Convention on Extradition.
	If the Secretary of State had regarded the two extradition requests and the Elaborative Memorandum as disclosing extradition crimes, he would nevertheless have refused to issue an Authority to Proceed in this case because he is satisfied that Senator Pinochet is unfit to stand trial and that there is no likelihood of significant improvement. He has today decided on that ground that he will not order the extradition of Senator Pinochet to Spain. It appears to him that even had the Belgian extradition requests and the Elaborative Memorandum disclosed extradition crimes Senator Pinochet's unfitness to stand trial would have precluded his extradition to Belgium for the same reasons as it precluded his extradition to Spain. The enclosed copy of his letter this morning to the Spanish Ambassador sets those reasons out.
	In these circumstances, the question whether Senator Pinochet could claim state immunity in respect of the offences alleged against him does not arise.
	My right honourable friend the Home Secretary referred to the three letters of request issued by the examining magistrate Mr Vandermeersch and transmitted on 19 and 24 January and 22 February 2000. The first of these seeks a further medical examination of Senator Pinochet. It has been executed in accordance with English law by inviting Senator Pinochet to submit voluntarily to the examination sought. He has declined to comply. In the light of the judgment of the High Court on 15 February 2000, the second letter of request has been executed so far as it seeks disclosure of the medical report. The Secretary of State does not propose to give effect to the second letter of request to any greater extent, having regard to the terms of that judgment and to his decision to refuse an authority to proceed in respect of Belgium's extradition requests. If Senator Pinochet were at some future stage to enter Belgium or to be extradited there from a third country, the Secretary of State will consider what further assistance might be appropriate. The third letter of request invites the Secretary of State or other competent authority to carry out an assessment of the frontal functions and of the autobiographical recall capacities of Senator Pinochet with the latter's consent. This letter has been executed so far as it can be by inviting Senator Pinochet's consent. He has declined. There is accordingly nothing more by way of execution to be done.
	As indicated, I am enclosing a copy of the letter which my right honourable friend sent this morning to the Spanish Ambassador. Letter to Swiss Ambassador
	The Secretary of State has today made a final decision not to issue an authority to proceed under Section 7 of the Extradition Act 1989 in respect of the request of Switzerland for Senator Pinochet's extradition, received on 11 November 1998 and renewed on 7 October 1999.
	2 WLR 827. An offence committed outside the United Kingdom is not an extradition crime unless it was punishable in the United Kingdom at the date when it is alleged to have been committed. Torture outside the United Kingdom and conspiracy to torture outside the United Kingdom first became punishable in the United Kingdom on 29 September 1988 when Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force.
	The requirement that offences alleged in an extradition request should be punishable under the law of the requested state is of course reflected in the European Convention on Extradition. None of the offences alleged in the extradition requests of Switzerland is alleged to have been committed after that date.
	If the Secretary of State had regarded the extradition request of Switzerland as disclosing extradition crimes, he would nevertheless have refused to issue an authority to proceed in this case because he is satisfied that Senator Pinochet is unfit to stand trial and that there is no likelihood of significant improvement. He has today decided on that ground that he will not order the extradition of Senator Pinochet to Spain. It appears to him that even had the request of Switzerland disclosed extradition crimes Senator Pinochet's unfitness to stand trial would have precluded his extradition to Switzerland for the same reasons as it precluded his extradition to Spain. The enclosed copy of my letter this morning to the Spanish Ambassador sets those reasons out.
	In these circumstances, the question whether Senator Pinochet could claim state immunity in respect of the offences alleged against him does not arise.
	As indicated, I am enclosing a copy of the letter which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has sent this morning to the Spanish Ambassador. Letter to French Ambassador:
	The Secretary of State has today made a final decision not to issue an authority to proceed under section 7 of the Extradition Act 1989 in respect of the requests of France for Senator Pinochet's extradition, transmitted on 13 November 1998 and 4 February 1999.
	2 WLR 827. An offence committed outside the United Kingdom is not an extradition crime unless it was punishable in the United Kingdom at the date when it is alleged to have been committed. Torture outside the United Kingdom and conspiracy to torture outside the United Kingdom first became punishable in the United Kingdom on 29 September 1988 when Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force.
	The requirement that offences alleged in an extradition request should be punishable under the law of the requested state is of course reflected in the European Convention on Extradition. None of the offences alleged in the extradition requests of France is alleged to have been committed after that date.
	If the Secretary of State had regarded the extradition requests of France as disclosing extradition crimes, he would nevertheless have refused to issue an authority to proceed in this case because he is satisfied that Senator Pinochet is unfit to stand trial and that there is no likelihood of significant improvement. He has today decided on that ground that he will not order the extradition of Senator Pinochet to Spain. It appears to him that, even had the requests of France disclosed extradition crimes, Senator Pinochet's unfitness to stand trial would have precluded his extradition to France for the same reasons as it precluded his extradition to Spain. The enclosed copy of my letter this morning to the Spanish Ambassador sets those reasons out.
	In these circumstances, the question whether Senator Pinochet could claim state immunity in respect of the offences alleged against him does not arise.
	A letter of request of 22 February from Judge Le Loire sought a further medical examination of Senator Pinochet. That request was forwarded to Senator Pinochet's legal representatives on 29 February. They confirm that he does not propose to comply.
	As indicated, I am enclosing a copy of the letter which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has sent this morning to the Spanish Ambassador.

Former President Yeltsin

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, given their attitude to Russian policy in Chechnya, former President Yeltsin will be arrested if he visits the United Kingdom.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As with any other individual, that would be a decision for the police based on their assessment of whether he had been guilty of any arrestable offence within the jurisdiction of the British courts.

Home Office Website

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why, contrary to the Framework policy and guidelines for the use, management and design of public sector websites, the Home Office's home page does not include a link to the open.gov.uk site.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Home Office website has a link to the open.gov.uk site on its front page. The following words appear on the front page:
	"If the Home Office does not deal with the subject you are looking for, please try the CCTA Government Information Service, which has a list of other government websites".
	There is a hypertext link from the words CCTA Government Information Service which points to the address of the open.gov.uk site and the words open.gov.uk will be added.

The Tote and the Horserace Betting Levy Board

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish their conclusions on the sale of the Tote and the future of the Levy Board.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The futures of the Horserace Totalisator Board (the Tote) and the Horserace Betting Levy Board have, for different reasons, been under review. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is now able to set out the Government's conclusions.
	My right honourable friend announced in another place (House of Commons, Official Report, cols. 159-60 on 12 May 1999) that the Government had decided to sell the Tote and that further work would be put in hand to determine the most appropriate method of sale. That work, which included the evaluation by independent financial advisers of a range of sale options, has now been completed. The options included flotation of the Tote on the stock market, its sale by open competitive auction and a sale to horseracing. Consideration of the best option was helped by the agreement of all relevant horseracing interests to support a single proposal to buy the Tote on behalf of racing in order to maintain the position under which all the Tote's profits are used for the benefit of racing.
	Following careful consideration of all the available sale options, my right honourable friend has concluded that a sale to racing represents the best match, in principle, with the Government's objectives for the sale as a whole, as set out in my May 1999 statement. While the price to be paid by racing for the Tote will need to be the subject of commercial negotiation, it will be important to ensure that it is a fair one which strikes the right balance between the respective legitimate interests in the Tote of both racing and the taxpayer.
	Racing's proposal to government aims to ensure that those who are responsible for managing and developing the Tote's business do so within a fully commercial operating environment. My right honourable friend believes that this represents the best options for the Tote and its staff, not forgetting, of course, all those who bet with it.
	We, therefore, propose to bring forward legislation, at the appropriate time and when parliamentary time allows, which would enable the sale to proceed on this basis. However, a final decision will need to take account of circumstances at the time, including the outcome of commercial negotiations and relevant legal considerations.
	My right honourable friend has also today published the report of the quinquennial review of the Horserace Betting Levy Board; copies have been placed in the Library.
	The Levy Board was set up in 1961 to collect a levy on horserace bets from bookmakers and to disburse it for the benefit of racing.
	The report concludes that the levy board is an efficient body which carries out its statutory functions well but that most of those functions no longer need to be carried out in the public sector. In particular, the arrangements under which racing receives income from bookmaking should become a matter for settlement between the parties on a commercial basis.
	The report recommends that the Government, in co-operation with the levy board and the industries involved, should take forward detailed consideration of all of the associated issues including the board's important role in the provision of integrity services and its regulatory functions.
	The Government agree with these conclusions and propose to bring forward, once again at the appropriate time and when parliamentary time allows, legislative proposals for the abolition of the levy board. We shall now be discussing with the board, the British Horseracing Board and other representatives of the racing and bookmaking industries the steps needed to put alternative arrangements in place. As part of this process my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be asking the British Horseracing Board, as racing's governing body, to prepare a realistic plan which shows how racing will be run as a national sport without a statutory levy.
	My right honourable friend should make it clear that the decision to abolish the levy system is no reflection on the performance of either the board or its staff. Both have made a significant contribution to the administration of racing over many years, which we gratefully acknowledge.
	The sale of the Tote and the abolition of the levy system will together mark an important change in the relationship between the Government and horseracing. The Secretary of State is responsible for policy on the regulation of gambling, which requires consideration of its social impact and measures to ensure protection against crime and exploitation. For reasons of history this responsiblity has involved the Government in the administration and financing of British horseracing to an extent and in ways which are no longer needed.
	My right honourable friend recently announced that the Government are to establish an independent review of gambling which offers racing and others an opportunity to put forward their ideas for the future control and regulation of betting on horseracing. Meanwhile the sale of the Tote and the abolition of the levy should enable racing to take more control of its own affairs and finances, as befits a mature sport. In preparing the legislation needed to give effect to these changes the Government are committed to working closely with racing, bookmaking and other relevant interests to ensure that the results which are delivered match up to our aspirations. Horseracing is an important and successful national sport which gives employment and pleasure to many people. We want it to prosper.

Burglary: Mandatory Sentences

Lord Dholakia: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What contribution they expect mandatory sentences to make to the targets for reducing burglary which were announced recently; and
	What proportion of the expected reduction in burglary they attribute to the mandatory sentence's deterrent effect; what proportion they attribute to the incapacitating effect on offenders who would otherwise have served shorter or non-custodial sentences; and on what empirical evidence they have based those calculations.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We expect the mandatory minimum sentence for a third offence of burglary to reduce recorded crimes by 3,000 a year and possibly up to 17,000 a year in the longer term. These expected reductions are based principally on the incapacitating effect of the sentence. The empirical evidence comes from a number of research studies, including the publication Analysing Offending by Roger Tarling (Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1993). We are also conducting a survey of recently sentenced prisoners that may enable us to provide better estimates of the likely reduction of burglaries through incapacitation.

Stansted Hijacking: Political Asylum Claims

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will announce their findings on the claims for political asylum made by some passengers on the aeroplane recently hijacked to Stansted airport.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Of the total 170 people on the aircraft, 73 returned voluntarily to Afghanistan on 14 February. Four members of the flight crew are due to return with the aircraft when necessary clearances have been given. Two passengers have also asked to return to Afghanistan. Arrangements are being made for them to do so. Fourteen individuals are the subject of criminal charges in relation to the hijacking. This leaves 44 passengers who have made a claim for asylum under the 1951 Geneva Convention, together with some 33 dependants.
	My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has postponed a decision in six claims made by the relatives of those charged because he has been advised that the effect of considering their claims could prejudice the trials of the hijackers. He has postponed a decision in two cases in which he is expecting further information from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and a further six cases in which further inquiries need to be made.
	My right honourable friend has personally considered each of the remaining claims, including the representations made by the legal advisers representing each applicant. He has also taken into account advice he has received from counsel and the Home Office Afghanistan country assessment. He has now reached his decisions. He has decided to grant refugee status in two cases because he is satified that their applications disclose a well-founded fear of persecution on a ground set out in the 1951 convention. In both cases, as it happens, the applicants' case for asylum arose before they had boarded the flight and it was a matter of chance for them that it was hijacked. Indefinite leave to enter will be granted to the wife of one of these applicants as his dependant, although she had claimed asylum in her own right. The claimants in these cases have five children who will also be given indefinite leave to enter. He has rejected the claims in the remaining 27 cases on the grounds that he is not satisfied they have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of their race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
	In considering each of these claims, my right honourable friend has taken proper account of the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 convention. He has taken account of all necessary legal requirements. These requirements are such that it would have been improper in the cases he has considered for him to take into account at that stage other factors, such as the need to deter future hijackers, and he has not done so. However, in determining the future status of those whose claims he has rejected, he has a different duty: to take into account all relevant information including public interest points in deterring future hijackings.
	In these cases, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided that the public interest in deterring future hijacks for the purposes of claiming asylum is a very strong one and, therefore, he has decided that they should not be given permission to stay in this country. Accordingly, he has given instructions that they should not be granted exceptional leave to enter, which would give them this permission. We are ready to make arrangements for them to return to Afghanistan voluntarily. Given the current situation in Afghanistan, it is not proposed immediately to set directions for their enforced removal to Afghanistan. Instead, we are continuing to explore the possibility of removing these individuals to other countries. In the meantime they will be offered bail conditions to be set by the Chief Immigration Officer involving a recognisance, restrictions on their address and conditions for regular reporting to the Immigration Service. Arrangements for accommodation will be made centrally and the cost will not be borne by local authorities. For the time being we will continue to detain those on whom no decision has been made.
	The events surrounding this terrorist act of hijacking have shown serious weaknesses in the way in which international conventions relating to refugees, terrorism and human rights operate. We shall be raising our concerns with like-minded countries and with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

Epichlorohydrin

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether epichlorohydrin is currently in use in any industrial processes; and whether it is to be found as part of the formulation of, or as a residue in, any consumer products.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Epichlorohydrin is an important chemical which is most commonly used in the production of epoxy resins, for instance for internal coatings for some food and beverage cans; and in the manufacture of wet-strength agents in some food contact materials. Government-funded research has shown that there is no migration of epichlorohydrin from can coatings into food and powdered beverages. The food industry is moving towards use of resins in the manufacture of wet-strength agents which have lower epichlorohydrin levels; and also lower levels of 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD) which is associated with epichlorohydrin and which the Food Advisory Committee has advised should be undetectable in foods (less than 10 parts per billion). Epichlorohydrin is also used in chemicals for agricultural use but is not used in any currently authorised diazinon pesticides. However, MAFF advises that establishing the extent to which it is used in other pesticide products could only be done at disproportionate cost.

Respiratory Symptoms in Children

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by Baroness Hollis of Heigham (H.L. Deb., 16 February, col. 1301) that "75 per cent of the illnesses of the children of lone parents are respiratory related and correlated with their parents' smoking", what is the correlation with exposure to moulds and fungi, dust, poor nutrition, stress and lack of sleep in this group of children.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Such information as is available is set out below.
	There is consistent evidence of an association between damp and mouldy housing and reports of respiratory symptoms in children. However, this association is not at present attributable to any specific fungi or bacteria in the air. Research is being carried out in this area and on the health effects of dust particles. Analysis of some factors related to wheezing in children in lone parent households was included in chapter 5 of The Health Survey for England: The Health of Young People '95-97, a copy of which is available in the Library.
	The 1996 English House Condition Survey estimates that nearly 59 per cent of the children of lone parents who smoke and live in homes with mould growth suffer from respiratory illnesses, compared to 39 per cent of such children in homes with no mould growth. The equivalent percentages for children where no person smokes in the home are 49 per cent and 37 per cent respectively.
	The Royal College of Physicians (RCP), in its report published in 1992 Smoking and the young, found that passive smoking is causally associated with additional episodes and increased severity of asthma in children who already have the disease. It goes on to say that there is little doubt that asthma is related to exposure to maternal smoking.
	What Happens to Lone Parents by Ford, Marsh & Finalyson (1998) found that over the period of the study, one-quarter of lone parents who responded had at least one child suffer long-term illness, 8 per cent had two or more ill. Nearly 70 per cent of the reported health conditions of the first or only ill child in the household were respiratory problems (most likely asthma). The second most common condition for children was nervous disorders (epilepsy).
	Our report, Opportunity for All--Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion (1999), includes the following:
	"Over one in four unemployed lone parents with infants live in poor housing, compared with 14 per cent of the population as a whole. Damp, inadequate heating and overcrowding are associated with general ill health and respiratory disorders, accidental injury and emotional problems. Children in low-income families are disproportionately more likely to suffer from poor health and live in worse environments".

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive: Charging

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Environment Agency propose to charge pig and poultry farmers for implementing the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, when there is no such requirement under the directive

Lord Whitty: In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, charging is a matter for each member state. The Environment Act 1995 requires the Environment Agency to recover the full cost of its regulatory activities.

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive: Charging

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they propose to introduce charges for pig and poultry farmers for implementing the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, when the directive is not due to come into force across the European Union until 2007.

Lord Whitty: The directive had effect from October 1999, and new or substantially changed installations will require an IPPC permit immediately; we expect there to be few, if any, such installations in the pig and poultry sectors. Under the regulations we propose to make later this session existing installations will be phased into IPPC on a sectoral basis until 2007 in order to spread the workload of the regulators. The poultry and pig sectors are due to be phased into IPPC in 2003 and 2004 respectively. The order of phase-in is guided by the production by the European Commission of the BAT reference documents on which UK guidance on standards will be based.

Abnormal Loads: Ignoring of Signs

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what circumstances it would be legal for the driver of an abnormal load to
	(a) go the wrong way past a "keep left" sign;
	(b) go the wrong way around a roundabout; and
	(c) cross a solid white line in the middle of a carriageway.

Lord Whitty: The legal significance of (a) "keep left signs", (b) signs at roundabouts and (c) solid white lines and permitted exceptions is set out in:
	(a) Regulation 15 of the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1519 Part I);
	(b) Schedule 2, diagram 606 of those regulations; and
	(c) Regulation 26 of those regulations.
	It is an offence under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 not to comply with the indications given by these signs. There are no special exemptions for drivers of abnormal loads. However, police officers and traffic wardens have powers to direct and regulate traffic as necessary (for example, to avoid an obstruction).

Road Safety Strategy

Lord Orme: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made in developing a road safety strategy.

Lord Whitty: Today, we have published our road safety strategy, Tomorrow's roads--safer for everyone. This sets stretching new targets to reduce the number of casualties on our roads, particularly child deaths and injuries. By 2010, we want to see a 40 per cent overall reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured and a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured compared with the average for 1994-98. We also want to see a 10 per cent reduction in the rate of slight injuries, measured per 100 million vehicle kilometres.
	Measures to achieve these objectives include:
	expecting local authorities to use their powers to introduce self-enforcing 20 mph zones around schools and in residential areas;
	a robust package of measures to further reduce drink driving;
	strengthening enforcement of drug driving, including a commitment to legislate to give police the powers to test for drugs at the roadside;
	consulting the public on a package of measures designed to encourage young and new drivers to take a more structured approach to learning to drive;
	continuing to monitor the driving test to ensure it is sufficiently stretching and appropriate for modern driving conditions;
	developing information schemes and advice for older drivers and publicity on the dangers of driving while using a mobile phone;
	expecting a 30 mph speed limit to be the norm for villages;
	increasing resources for local transport plans, which will include local road safety plans and targets, to £1 billion next year;
	setting up a road safety advisory panel which will include representatives of the main stakeholders and will help us to review our targets and strategy; and
	raising the standard of road safety education, particularly promoting child pedestrian training in deprived areas, where we know children are at greater risk.
	Enforcement of road traffic law will have a major part to play in improving road safety. The Home Office is conducting a major review of all road traffic penalties, including those for speeding and careless driving, which will report in due course.
	The Government's detailed review of speed policy has also been published today. Tomorrow's roads--safer for everyone reflects the findings of this review. It does not recommend blanket changes to existing speed limits but acknowledges that there is a place for lower limits in specific areas where there is an accident problem.
	Copies of the documents published today--the Government's detailed review of speed policy; the Government's response to the ETR Select Committee's report Young and Newly Qualified Drivers: Standards and Training; the Government's response to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety's report Road Traffic Law and Enforcement; the Highways Agency's safety plan Making the network safer--Highways Agency strategic plan for safety and a report by the Transport Research Laboratory The numerical context for setting national casualty reduction targets--have all been placed in the Library.

Motorcyclists: Safety Improvements

Lord Orme: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to revise motorcycle licensing rules following the safer motorcycling consultation exercise undertaken by the Driving Standards Agency last year.

Lord Whitty: The document Tomorrow's roads--Safer for everyone, which is published today, sets out the broad context for how we propose to deliver road safety improvements for motorcyclists. A detailed report of the decisions taken in response to the consultation exercise has also been issued today, and I shall place copies in the Library of the House.
	We are removing unnecessary restrictions while improving training and testing for learner riders. We shall abolish the rule that means learner riders lose their provisional licence after two years, and we shall improve the training they receive. New licences will be valid until age 70 years, provided the rider holds a current training certificate. New car drivers will have basic safety training before riding a moped.

Linford Christie

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions they have had with Sport England regarding the decision taken by the New South Wales Government to ban Linford Christie from using state-owned training facilities in connection with his work as a coach to a squad of British athletes.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: UK Sport has primary responsibility for anti-doping policy and procedures within the UK, but the Government have had no discussions with it about this issue. The decision to ban an athlete suspended by his international federation, in this case the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF), arises from the federal and state legislation in Australia and New South Wales.

Northern Ireland: Curriculum Review

Lord Eames: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why representatives of the main Churches in Northern Ireland and representatives of other world faiths were not included in the curriculum review by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in the Province despite the spiritual and ethical considerations involved; and
	Whether representatives of the Churches will be consulted by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in Northern Ireland in the process of curriculum review, thus ensuring the government commitment to the creation of a fully inclusive society is honoured.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can assure the noble Lord that the council will include the Churches in the consultation process for the curriculum review. Two major periods of consultation are due to take place covering the curriculum framework and the revised programmes of study. On the present timescale of operations these are due to take place between April and June 2000 and between April and June 2001.

RUC: Criminal Injuries Compensation

Lord Eames: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland, they will review the scales of compensation and support paid to widows and families of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers killed on active service.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Pursuant to the answer given by my noble friend Lord Dubs on 9 November 1999 (Official Report, columns 141-42), the Government are currently considering their response to the report of the review of criminal injuries compensation in Northern Ireland which includes recommendations on the scales of compensation.
	The Patten report recommends that a substantial fund be set up to support widows, injured police officers, injured retired officers and their families and that the Widows Association be supplied with an office and a regular source of finance to run their organisation. The Government fully accept these recommendations and are currently working on their implementation.